Skip to main content
5:00 pm
the presidential race was about. it showed a slight advantage to the democrats. that has to do that demographic shift. i remember when i came to washington. i remember writing an article for it -- remember that --public opinion magazine? >> yeah. i think you will see people start to write about a democratic electoral lock due to the changing demographics. we are seeing an electorate where the democrats are doing well among african-americans, hispanics, asians, younger voters, and white liberals. now that needle appears to have
5:01 pm
moved slightly to the democrats, so that if you have a kind of normal base election, the democrats have a very slight advantage. i think most people say we will continue to grow over time, unless the republicans do something to make inroads into some of the court demographics. if you look at the house races, you have to be cautious because the -- about the big message you are drawing. yes, the democrats gained what looks to me by my count about eight house seats. half their gains have to do with coming from illinois and california and are largely redistricting gains. but republican still control the house. what would you say was the democrats' message this election cycle, in terms of the issues
5:02 pm
are policy? they talked about republican extremism but, what is the strong message that the congressional level? it was two-pronged. one, medicare, and two, the ryan budget. medicare is one of the examples , and the right and budget shows different priorities, and republican parties are wrong. that message did not really .orke it was not a decisive win, certainly at the house level, for that message. my editor mentioned this to me as i was going out the door last night. we had three major house special
5:03 pm
elections over the last couple of years. one in pennsylvania, mark critz won that one, one in new york when chris lee, he of sending photographs, left office in upstate new york, was replaced by democrat, and the third when the arizona seat opened up after congresswoman giffords stepped down after that horrible shooting, she was replaced by congressman barber. the democrats won all three of those special election, and indeed to every case, they said they won because of medicare. that is what it was, medicare. then what the democrats said was, and we are going to use that as a template for winning the 2012 election.
5:04 pm
it didn't work at the congressional level. when you look at the exit polls and see why people voted in how they voted, times it is not so simple. the exit polls have some very strange results. is the country headed in the right direction are seriously off on the wrong track? right direction, 46, wrong track, 62. keep that number in mind, wrong track, 62. what kind of job has barack obama done as president? approve or disapprove? the approve its 54%. did you notice that? 54%. i have not seen a 54 job approval for the president in a long time. 52% of the country thinks the country is headed in the wrong track and 54 approve of the
5:05 pm
president's performance. but those numbers together. another question was significant for barack obama and it hurt mitt romney. who was to blame for the current economic problems? they gave a choice, the president or george bush? 38% said president barack obama , 53% said george bush. this goes back to bill clinton. folks, it and i could not have solved this problem. it's all george bush's fault. i think the president and his team and the democratic party got a lot of mileage out of the bush years and out of what the public concluded was george bush's failings or shortcomings. you don't have to agree that he failed are had shortcomings, i am just telling you what the public thinks. that is what matters now.
5:06 pm
but i think the lesson coming out of this election -- nothing charlie is right, the lesson coming out of this is that the public now is inclined to say to the democrats and republicans need to do something to change their message, to change their reputation and image. i think generally, charlie is right with what he said about the republicans being extreme and too ideological. i think that is certainly true. it is also the case that republicans have another problem. the democratic base has a particular world view and a set of assumptions and values that increasingly in a polarized environment makes it difficult for them to vote for scott brown and heather wilson. the problems -- the problem with the republicans -- they have
5:07 pm
some very ideologically driven voters, but part of the republican base is more open to voting for democrats than the democratic base is to vote for republicans, i believe. that even example. heidi is a terrific candidate in north dakota. mitt romney one north dakota by 21. and i was able to overcome that. it is true that she -- that the president one north dakota slightly less than -- at mitt romney 1 north dakota at slightly less than the president's won massachusetts. but the republican coalition includes kind of a soft swing voter that is inclined to vote republican, but as more willing
5:08 pm
to vote for democrats. john barrow in georgia, the republican candidate was horrendous. a challenger refused to debate the incumbent. [laughter] i didn't say it was a bad decision, i just said it says something about the challenger. i think this is an additional problem. it is easier for moderate, centrist democrats to feel the republican voters than for i moderate, centrist republicans to feel for democrats. there is a lot of stuff to talk about.
5:09 pm
i think in the short term, you are seeing some immediate republican flexibility on taxes and on dealing with sequestration and the fiscal cliff. i talked to one republican media consultant the other day he said, you know, i think there's a chance that if obama wins comfortably with the electoral college and the underperform in the house or the senate, and clearly the republicans underperformed in the senate, every tossup race with democratic, just as charlie said, every swing tossup state went democratic, magnifying the outcome. if something like that happens, i think republican folks will give a little bit on taxes, because republican members of congress are just tired of being hammered for being for millionaires and billionaires.
5:10 pm
it looks as though the election goes against us, i think they will give ground there. so in the short term, i think there is an opportunity to address some of these issues, including the large defense cuts and across-the-board cuts and deficit issues in short term. but still, count me as a skeptic in the long term, on the bigger question of taxes and spending and entitlements. because the way the political system has developed, the way the parties are, tuesday night we are all in this together, boehner comes out the next day, yes, we can work this out, but over time, the reality is still up to very different parties with very different values, very different constituencies, and when republicans starts to get
5:11 pm
to squishy or a democrat starts to move to the middle, they get pounded on. shawn hannity, rush limbaugh, and shultz, and rachel matskmad. i started seeing earlier, getting e-mails from the pccc, which is the progressive change campaign committee, which saw the success of 2010 on the right and said we could do the same thing on the left. there is just more and more movement on the extremes, demanding in the party faithful to stay faithful. we still have primaries and republicans have to figure out a way to avoid tied aid in -- todd
5:12 pm
akins and richard mourdocks. there is no increase in the christine o'donnell vote, the witch vote. the republicans had five seats in the last two cycles for the have sacrificed a seat by nominating sharon engle and christine o'donnell, and now the two this time. republicans are going to have to figure out how to do this. they are attacked as washington trying to tell folks in individual states to to nominate. they don't get involved, they don't play a role, and they just have to watch outside groups
5:13 pm
come in and give them lousy nominees. so i do think the republicans will be going through some soul- searching, trying to figure out how they can feel it -- how they can appeal to african-american, asian, and hispanic voters. mia love got a prime-time speaking slot in the republican convention. an african american woman, a haitian immigrant. and she ends up losing. so the party clearly is going to be looking for other, new candidates. i will not talk about 2016, but you have to think that bobby jindal will continue to be more and more visible. marco rubio, susana martinez, the party needs to change. the democrats are in a very comfortable position now, i
5:14 pm
think long-term, politically, where they have demographics on their side. as long as they don't go too far left, they will start off with a slight advantage. having said that, this is a crazy political environment. a lot of the political rules have been thrown out. more than anything else, i'd advise you to expect the unexpected. not just the next two or three months, but the next five or six years, until the country does decide one way or the other that it is going to choose between two grand visions. i will stop there and we will take questions, comments, or arguments. [applause] >> i just wanted to add one thing. which comes closer to your view, governments should do more to solve problems, or government
5:15 pm
is doing too many things better left to business and individuals? governments doing too much, government doing too many things better left to business and individuals. the responses from the public, government should do more to solve problems, 43. governments doing too many things better left to business and individuals, 51. if i gave you that question, we do not think that mitt romney would have won the election? but a quarter of the people who said the government is doing too many things better left to business and individuals, a quarter of those people voted for the president. >> it is a quarter after nine. we will go until quarter of 10 with questions. the conventional wisdom is that washington is dysfunctional and
5:16 pm
relationships don't count as much as they once did, but it was sort of amazing to look at the electoral map from alabama to texas and texas up to montana, and that was a solid red. look at stake like oklahoma where two-thirds of the voters voted for romney in massachusetts were two-thirds were for obama. it is hard to believe how we are going to get there in terms of compromise when the voters in both states represented by republicans and by democrats in their states are so partisan. >> yes. >> i was talking during the practice with someone about when you create these ideological echo chambers in each party, it just makes it very, very difficult. it sounds like a good chance
5:17 pm
that nancy pelosi is stepping aside. we don't know if steny hoyer is going to move up or if they move down to a generational thing. could be the one of them make a deal stick within their caucuses? -- could either one of them make a deal stick? even if mcconnell and reid both tried to put something together, they have some exotic people on their side. you are absolutely right, and then toss in one more factor. you've got all the dysfunctional capitol hill, and then you have a president that basically has no relationship whatsoever with congress on either side. virtually no interaction with members of congress. wow.
5:18 pm
>> i don't agree with anything charlie just said. no, i agree with everything he just said. the key mayb be whether the president shows decisive leadership. i don't think decisive leadership necessarily is what he showed a lot of the time in the first term. not that he did not show any leadership. he did not get his hands really dirty. the public option fight we had, if you send it to may i will sign it. he let nancy pelosi take the lead on the public option, and on a lot of things. we knew what he preferred, but
5:19 pm
he did not twist arms. he just did not seem to get involved in the details. is he going to do that now? if he does that, is he going to just -- well, i got a second term, we pick up seats in the senate, so now the republicans have to come to meet. real leadership is going to your own party and saying i am going to bring you along. he has more sway in his own party than he will telling michele bachmann what to do, or cruz what to do.ted he is limited to what he can do, just as john boehner and democratic leadership are limited by the broader environment. >> matt denn i am sensitive to this -- everyone in this room
5:20 pm
should read the fourth volume on lyndon johnson. it is available on cd's. it is 26 cd's long. that is a drive from washington d.c. to tampa, florida, where they had the republican convention, to charlotte, fort bragg, back to charlotte, washington. that is 26 cd's. [laughter] but i have this image of lyndon johnson spinning in his grave at the idea that there is the president of the united states that has minimal interaction of congress, especially some of his own party. republicansorget and tea party people. forget them. just in his own party, wander
5:21 pm
around the hill, as all of you do all the time, and ask democratic members of congress, how much personal interaction do you have with the president? i hate giving political credit for anything, but they have that piece back in may that pointed out that the president, as of may, had not had a single conversation this year with the their kent conrad, chairman of the senate budget committee, where tom harkin, phone or in person, this year. now, you could talk about the party obstructionist, this and that, but if you are not talking to keep people in your own party. i checked with the unofficial historian of the contemporary presidency. the president played golf 104
5:22 pm
times. the know how many members of congress have played golf with him? two. that is it. there are 40 basketball games that are known, and there were 10 members in one game. that is it. the all-around -- there are democratic house offices of not freshmen and sophomores that have never had a single one health official walk across the threshold. let's say the president is 100% committed to getting a budget deal through, a grand bargain. but you have to ask yourself, even if his intentions are absolutely the best, and even if he is absolutely committed to it, he is going to have to change the whole way operates, 100%. a democratic lobbyist friends of mine says the model of the white
5:23 pm
house seems to be, no new friends. i am a long-term optimist and a short-term pessimists. but we will see. >> bill clinton wants any new fran he could find, and that was part of the reason he was so successful politically, and this president has a different way of operating. >> i caution you on the writing herman cain -- deriding herman cain. if he could do 10 days, don sweeney could go the distance, and i will give her my check right now.
5:24 pm
obviously the republican grant is not working, or is a different version of the brand being resented that is allowing republicans to basically control most of the state. what do you think the differences? >> distance from washington and distance from the national party. you can obviously look at any election and a number of different ways. republicans could take some comfort in knowing that romney lost 50-29. a couple of months ago, out of 11 swing states, republicans carried one. he basically one what john mccain won, plus indiana, which nobody considers a swing state, plus north carolina. you go one out of 11, then you have the senate tossup.
5:25 pm
republicans lost nine out of 10. i think senator cornyn and all the folks -- one of the more talented campaign committees i have ever seen. two cycles in a row, they have had the worst loss. when your party nominate people that are so exotic that they have little or no chance of winning general elections, that ought to be very winnable, that is not something campaign committee can do anything about. you have party bosses from washington dictating who are candidates are going to be, or do you allow yourself the diversity of a bunch of wackos?
5:26 pm
>> a whole bunch of these republican governors were elected in 2010, which was against barack obama, the stimulus, the takeovers. no matter how partisan the state, they will send the opposite party to the state mansion, but they will not send them to d.c. even bob ehrlich one in maryland, and democrats get elected governor -- sullivan in wyoming, severely as in kansas, in some -- sibelius in kansas. republicans don't want to send a democrat to d.c. and democrats don't want to send a republican to d.c.
5:27 pm
in 2014, they will probably be running against fatigue of the second obama administration. >> take a look at how close it was in indiana. four. . >> it should have been 12 or 15. >> a big article in the washington post today about expenditures. what do you think? >> you are asking me that here? i looked at the article. there was so much money in the political system. of billion dollars in tv ads.
5:28 pm
first of all, there's the question of the quality of the ads, but then the question is just the sheer weight of the ads. there were so many ads and so many states, what moved the election? the debates, it was a news event. maybe the hurricane. was not the ads. that is my view. >> las vegas was passed the point where they had had their 73,000 th tv ad.
5:29 pm
some of the obama field offices never close sector 2008. the saturation level of advertising, in swing states you had two kinds of people. the people that literally hit the mute button every time a political ad came on, and the people who mentally hit the mute button every time a political ad came on. >> romney was pretty far from an ideal candidate, and it sounds like the president's approval ratings were on the upswing. ratings if not at a historical low, are pretty darn low. there was not a lot of turnover in the house. is there reason we did not see more turnover in the house? >> rather than have voters pick
5:30 pm
their elected officials, you have elected officials picking the voters. the redistricting process has successfully insulated so many members of congress where the only re-election concerns that have are winning their own primaries next time. when the primary concern you had if you are a democrat is looking over your left shoulder, worrying about a primary next time, or if you are republican, your biggest reelection challenge is looking over your right shoulder anticipating a possible conservative challenger in the next primary. for most of these people, it is hard to imagine what that might have to do to lose re-election. it would involve barnyards and animals. >> more exotic. >> i no longer look at
5:31 pm
congressional approval. i think it has no relevance to elections. i don't know why that ask the question anymore. >> many lost on the basis of redistricting. >> not going back to your district makes a difference. >> part b, the only way you get 12% congressional job approval or 10% its if republicans and democrats give low ratings to the institution. but that does not mean republicans are going to vote against republican candidates. republicans blame the democrats and democrats blame republicans. the numbers shows a lack of confidence in the government and
5:32 pm
the institutions, the dissatisfaction with congress. >> we have a question right over here. >> you both mentioned demographics. the republicans today are the party of grumpy old white men. what is the path forward, particularly related to the hispanic vote? >> i think of myself as sympathetic with the business community. i think the business community as not taken a leadership role on the immigration issue, and finding realistic, reasonable compromises and selling it within the republican party, and getting some of the more exotic opinion leaders and top radio people to shut the hell up. when you are in a whole, stop digging.
5:33 pm
the republican party needs to, number one, addressed the immigration issue and stop alienating latino voters. think we are ever going to see any appreciable number of order ricans ever voting republican, but with mexican americans, as mexican-american incomes rise, their willingness to consider voting republican goes up. yes, when you have leading voices in the party -- if you were going to say what were the two worst decisions mitt romney may, one was on a bailout, the second was immigration. compounding what he said during a primary last summer, when he spurned marco rubio is a dream at compromise. that is number one. no. 2, just shut up on social-
5:34 pm
cultural issues. they need to deliver the message in private, quietly, and get the heck away from that. how many times in the course of a year do all of you hear someone say, well, i consider myself as an economic conservative, but -- and you fill in the rest of the sentence. there is a boatload of voters that the republican party is basically pushing away. that mentality lead you to people making the todd akin and richar mourdock kind of statements. it encourages the kind of talk
5:35 pm
that in normal society is absolutely unacceptable, and you cannot have that. >> i think it is a little harder than what charlie is suggesting. should your state recognize same-sex marriage? yes, 49%, no, 46%. think of what the response to that would have been 20 or 30 years ago. the problem with republicans is, a huge chunk of the party is culturally conservative, religious voters. turnout is really important. getting the base energized, enthusiastic. i think the republicans are caught between a rock and a hard place. they need to somehow be seen as more tolerant on these issues, but i don't know how much wiggle room that have.
5:36 pm
on hispanics, i would have liked to have seen if it had make it -- it would have made any difference of marco rubio had been on the ticket. >> that's like saying i want to suck up to the irish vote, i will get an englishmean. [laughter] >> it would have at least conveyed the sense of a broader republican party. that did not convey a sense of diversity. republicans are knee-jerk inherently opposed to diversity. they have a knee-jerk reaction to that.
5:37 pm
i think the party needs a different look. these different spokesman out there. cubans, mexican americans, of course, but they need to present a different look. >> among the political phenomenon that a -- intrigues me the most is ticket splitting. i wanted to get your thoughts on that. just looking at some of the results, montana elected a democratic governor, democratic senator, and the president only got 42%. in missouri, nixon and mccaskill, but democrats, got 55% and obama tops out at 44%,
5:38 pm
and lost every county except jefferson st. louis and st. louis city. west virginia, they elected a democratic governor and senator with 61%, and yet the president talked out at 36%. i just wanted to get your comments on that. >> you've got three different things than two different situations. it, -- in let's face missouri, todd akin contaminated it. in places like montana and west virginia, you have democrats that could have told you on
5:39 pm
january 1 -- could have told you four years ago that president obama was going to be a liability in my state, and i am not going to have to -- there never will be any lack of distance between me and him at any point. it is not like they have been cozying up to him and then -- the picture that republicans had of joe manchin and president obama together, there is only one reason they could get the picture, because they had to be at the same funeral. that is the only reason that picture even existed, because there is not a second picture of them together. so these guys had a lot of notice to create a lot of distance, and rebel to do it. >> i have other examples i could give you. in massachusetts, a pro gay marriage, pro-choice, fiscally
5:40 pm
conservative moderate republican lost, i expect, because of party-line voting. scott brown could not run far enough ahead. when john tyrannies wife's relatives, a significant number of them are either under investigation, or indictment, maybe even more, it is stunning. in the chris murphy district in the northwestern part of the state, a pro gay marriage, pro- choice, moderate republican said of want to be the test of whether there is room for and they role for the old style, moderate republican from the northeast. he lost 52-48 in a competitive
5:41 pm
district. there was some ticket splitting in those, but not enough. i think there were more of those districts. >> the trend is the opposite way. you can always find examples that are counter to the trend, but the general trend is that we are voting in a more parliamentary way in this country than we used to. >> unfortunately, our time is up. i would like to thank charlie and stu very much. [applause] i would also like to thank the chamber for great partnership, and to our sponsors today. if you could, please fill out that survey.
5:42 pm
on december 14, leading authorities will host our final conversations at the newseum, and the topic will be the fiscal cliff. thanks very much, have a great day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> on tomorrow morning's washington journal, fred barnes will take questions about the elections and the future of the republican party. we will discuss the hispanic vote with max sevillia. we will look at demographic changes in the electorate. washington journal is live
5:43 pm
everyday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. more about demographics on c- span3 tomorrow morning. we'll examine how voter turnout in demographics affected the election. that is live at 9:00 a.m. eastern. >> c-span programming is good because they try to cover both sides of the issues. the moderators do a good job of staying detached, especially on the "washington journal." there are very comprehensive about covering both the house and senate and other public affairs centers that would normally not be exposed to. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by
5:44 pm
your television provider. >> cq role call hosted an election impact conference earlier today. they are looking at the new congressional make up an economic questions looming over congress. coming up, the panel focusing on the presidential race. this is just over an hour. >> midmorning. thank you all for being here for what is amazingly, the 16th biennial post-election conference, hosted by cq roll call. in 2009, cq was acquired by the economist group so we are now cq roll call. either way, it is the 16th time
5:45 pm
we have done this. every election since ronald reagan won in 1980. i am david hocking's and i have been here since i first day of work, the day newt gingrich became speaker in 1995. i am now the editor of the cq roll call daily briefing, which is one of the few things we give away for free. what is is an e-mail that i send every morning right before noon, the trust to offer a window into the politics and policy of the day, how the day is unfolding and what is the analytical constructs of the afternoon in the house and senate and the campaigns. i hope it is a good read and maybe will learn something from it. i also give away handful of our best stories, and starting on
5:46 pm
monday, the new league relaunched roll call, which will be -- i cannot wait to see it and be part of it. it will be a must read the daily newspaper, monday through friday, that will combine the best of cq today and the best reporting about policies and people of capitol hill. that starts next week. i want to thank our partners, the public affairs council. there are great people to work with. i would also like to make a special shout out -- i am the host today, but the real person who puts this together is my colleague, meaghan. [applause]
5:47 pm
with that, i think we should just dive right in. you know what the first panel is about. you probably know who some of these people are because they have public spaces in one way or another. two of them are former colleagues of mine. on the far right, we covered the clinton impeachment a few years ago. they know more than i do about the topic at hand, so i will stand aside and let them speak. >> what we do at pew research center is polling, but we also do great deal of demographic analysis and tell you the patterns that will be shaping this country and the electorate for years to come. this election was a real
5:48 pm
interesting one from that perspective. maybe it is the way that americans learn about the changing demographics of their country. it takes an election like this. there really was not a huge change in the demographics in 2012 compared to 2008. , but it changed just enough, but it changed and a certain direction that it mattered a great deal. hispanics and minorities are still underrepresented in the electorate compared to the general public, but in key states, we saw the hispanic turnout pick up, we saw the black turnout pick up in a few key states, and this matter great deal for the election. what it caused us to do was take a broader look at some of the changes in this country.
5:49 pm
1960, when jfk was elected president, the country was 85% white. today, that figure is down to 63%. we estimate by the middle of this century, when we have this conference and 2056, we will be talking about the minority white .oavote that is pretty clear, based on current trends. there are a lot of data points that show this, but if you look at the overall romney vote, nearly 9 in 10 or white non hispanics. 56% of obama voters were quite non-hispanic. this gives you the dimension of this change. there really was not an overall influx of hispanic and minorities generally into the polls this year, but in key
5:50 pm
states, it really mattered. a big shift in ohio. in florida, the percentage of hispanic voters went up to 17% from 14% in 2008. the composition changed and it has grown from what it was just a few years ago with more puerto ricans making up the hispanic vote in florida. democrats rule to keep their edge in the overall electorate, a shock to many people that the overall partisan composition of the electorate looked so similar to 2008, with democrats holding a six. age. the other big demographic story of tuesday's election was women. our first poll after the first
5:51 pm
debate, when romney did so well and obama did so poorly, showed the gender gap almost closing entirely. it had to be a shock for a lot of democrats to look that old. there were other polls that showed the same thing. romney really make gains among women after that first debate. in part, he was seen as a little bit more moderate. the issues that came up in that debate, there very few social issues coming up in that debate. but by election day, the gender gap had not only gone back to normal, it probably went bigger than normal. women favored obama by 11 points and men favored romney by 7. it is one of the bigger and gender gaps we have ever seen. it was another important factor for obama selection. let's think about the short-term and long-term implications of this.
5:52 pm
you will be hearing a lot about the republican struggles with this changing face of america and a lot of talk about what they will do about immigration reform and some other issues. in a lot of ways, this is a challenge for both parties. in 2014, ironically, the electorate is probably going to be a lot wider and a lot older than the election of tuesday. the democrats have the challenge of trying to face an electorate like that. you can see from the composition of the house, they are not doing so well in that regard. 2010 was a terrible election and had a very different demographic makeup than the one on tuesday. but the republicans really do face a long-term problem with the demographic changes in the country, especially in presidential elections.
5:53 pm
it goes way deeper than immigration, obviously. in some ways, the republican strategy this year was somewhat predictable. it almost worked, and i think it will be criticized a lot, but for one more election, probably was a reasonable enough strategy. if it had worked, if romney had been elected, it would have been the last time it could have worked, because of the demographic changes. as the party faces its future now, there is going to be a lot of soul-searching, what to do about reaching out to minorities to try to address these demographic changes. but the poll. will be on immigration reform, i think. there'll be some attempt to moderate the party's position on it. our polling shows it goes much deeper than that. and people, minorities, take fundamentally different views on
5:54 pm
the role of government, size of government, issues like that that coming to the forefront now. these are very liberal positions that hispanics take on the role of government and the size of government that are in opposition to a lot of the republicans positions. so that is the main challenge for the party as it goes forward. it was only eight years ago that george bush won 44% of hispanic votes. demographics is not necessarily destiny for either party. when you go forward and seek the republican underperformance with key groups like hispanics and young people, i think that represents probably the biggest challenge republicans face going
5:55 pm
forward. >> just a couple of things, the president's reelection team set early on that wanted to make their strategy about getting their people to show up, and they argue that because of the demographic changes that we have just been talking about, there were more of their people to begin with. he started with the big bands when you look at the electoral college and all the seats he was able to win over john mccain in 2008. they wanted to lay out a strategy to get all their people to the polls. they invested early on in state offices. the republicans scoffed at that in the beginning, saying it was a waste of money and they should wait until the end. that is one of the big reasons the president was able to win. i talked to multiple people who went and did field work in ohio,
5:56 pm
operating as volunteers in washington. they said because they did not have to drive so far between these big counties, weather was registration forms or whatever technology that reusing, that made all the difference because they could talk to more people. these are hundreds of thousands of door knocks and phone calls they were able to do. when you look at the exit polls, there are a couple of things beyond the changing face of the nation, it is the changing attitudes of the nation. wisconsin elected the nation's first openly lesbian center. gay marriage was approved in four states. marijuana will be legal in colorado. this is a country where people are becoming more socially liberal, while the republicans are doing this soul-searching between what type of social policies they want to promote.
5:57 pm
that tripped up a lot of senate candidates. this is where young voters are a big part of this demographic as well. they turned out in bigger numbers in 2012 than they did in 2008, despite her not being lower overall. studies show that if you get a person to vote for the same party at three major elections in a row, you have them for life. that was a big concern for the democrats in 2010 when the tea party movement started up and republicans were able to win back the house. that is something republicans are looking at closely. how'd you get congress connected with young people. most of them will say that they hate congress, generally, but also that it does not really affect them. this is all laying the groundwork for what is ahead.
5:58 pm
when you look at the obama and romney strategy, mitt romney one independent and suburban voters by a narrow margin on tuesday night. that was his strategy, he wanted to focus on that. it just shows there were more of the types of people that the obama campaign was targeting. when you think about all the money that was spent on not just a presidential race but the senate and house contests, you can evaluate whether was effective for naught. in virginia, you had $51.50 million of southside spending in that senate contest, compared to $30 million for the two candidates of the parties combined. the majority that was republican spending. is it possible that the campaign it was just
5:59 pm
not as popular as it appeared to be nationally. 78% of people made up their mind in the presidential contest before october, before that debate where mitt romney performed better than a bomb. that says a lot about this organization. >> i thought what i might do this morning, since my colleagues are more fact based that a lot of people are in this town, not to focus on fiction, but to focus on narratives. think about a political campaign as a story. when they take three years from beginning to end, they are more of a novel than a short story. they have heroes and villains, irony, rising action and climax and plot twists.
6:00 pm
often we hear what is the media narrative this week or the campaign narratives. i thought what i would do is talk about some of the narratives that came out of the campaigns and about the nature of the electorate and what americans in terms of some of the narrative is that were invalidated, -- this one we will against -- the fact that - 8 campaign does work trade we don't like seeing the ads but negative ads, especially when they are placed before october, especially before labor day, can really have an impact. there is an old adage in business and politics that you -- if you don't find yourself, someone will define you for your key audience and that is largely what happened when bill lot would -- and the obama came out early defining mitt romney as a 1%er, a rich executive.
6:01 pm
romney did not help himself when he said he did not care about 47% of the electorate. what he meant to say doesn't matter. the reason that resonated so strongly with people have already heard that message through the obama campaign ads. had they not done that, they would have listened to his side of the story a little more. corollary to this whole idea is that the negative ads placed late in the game are not nearly as effective and when they are not done well and come off as nasty, i think they can be counterproductive. if you live in a swing state like virginia, by the time october came along, i was just going through those commercials as fast as i could because i did not want to see anywhere. when i opened my mail and saw all these fliers from the campaign and outside groups, i did not look very closely. some of the ones from outside
6:02 pm
groups were brutal to the point where it's hard to imagine them actually convincing someone. that's one of the unintended consequences of all of this greater participation. the campaigns and parties cannot control the messages and they cannot calibrate the messages from those funding of the opposition. a second narrative to i think is true, if a campaign is a story, you have rising and falling action and its possible to make a comeback. people root for the underdog. as a challenger, romney was the underdog. he wasn't doing terribly but he wasn't doing great in the middle of september. if you are a challenger, you have three opportunities to change the game. what is the political convention. the second is the selection of your vice-president, and that then there is the debates. the convention did not so -- to
6:03 pm
not go so great, especially clint eastwood. paul ryan was a pretty strong collect -- pretty strong selection and was a strong campaigner and pleased the conservative base. on the other hand, the challenger did not when wisconsin, so it didn't pay off and that regard. but the first debate did pay off. romney came in well prepared. for a lot of people predisposed to not like him, he came off as presidential and smart and comfortable with himself. it was obvious the president prepared for the wrong debate. he prepared for romney to take a host of positions he did not put forth in that first debate. -- he was not able to keep it in that debate that followed. three quick narrative that turned out to be true but the american public. americans want to be helpful. during america -- during an election like this, they want to be inspired and told the world can be better. this is the main reason obama was let the first time around.
6:04 pm
had it was a lot tougher the second time because we're still experiencing a downturn, but he said stick with me and we can do this together. romney said i have faith in america and are better times around the corner. he tended to say that in his later campaign ads but early opportunities criticizing how bad things were and if you think things are good, they're not so good. the next point is americans want to be helpful and moving forward. but what a sense of progress. the bombing campaign got this. their whole theme was "forward." and in the romney campaign, it was "believed in america." that can perhaps be inspiring but if you listen to his speech is all on clay, they were more nostalgic and inspirational. we want to return to a time when america was great and respected from world. if he was trying to be like ronald reagan in that approach, remember the theme of "morning
6:05 pm
in america." it wasn't remember the day when it was morning in america. it was helpful. the final-that turned out to be true is american inclusiveness, we are part of a big community, we're not read, we're not blue, we are the united states of america. the coalition the president needed to put together in order to win of women and young people and african-americans, also served to fit the theme. the republicans' strength was also the weakness. the ability to have some solidarity around some issues to keep the president from moving forward in terms of tax increases and spending and even on some social issues. the obama campaign and a few others in the republican side said some inappropriate things,
6:06 pm
they were able to paint the party with that brush. will never romney disavow what was said in the indiana senate campaign. that was a pretty good counterpunch to republican solidarity. in terms of some of the narrative as we have debunked at least for the time being, and this is one of the more interesting ones -- when the supreme court ruled in the citizens united case, there was a lot of concern for obvious reason that a lot of hyperbole and one of the main things was this loses the white house for obama and republicans will take over the senate's. neither one happened. a lot of money was spent. i saw a lot of money the other day that $600 million was spent by superpac and a billion
6:07 pm
dollars was spent all together. sheldon adelson it spent over $50 million of his own funds on something like eight races. the last i heard, he lost all of them. it shows that money can't buy happiness and can't necessarily by elections either. money has an influence. i'm not trying to go too far in the other direction but it did not have quite the influence as many thought it would. it might create certain resolve on the other side that we're going to fight these outsiders getting involved in these elections. another interesting narrative you hear over and over again -- this is an interesting point -- this idea that ceos make good political candidates. i'm not sure that's true. steve forbes, ross perot, i'm
6:08 pm
sure there are others who spent large fortunes of their personal money, using the message i know how to run a business, i'm confident, smart and know how to get things done. all of which are true, but we did a survey on public attitudes on business and government and one of the questions we asked about the impression of ethics and honesty -- ceos did not do terribly well. only 8% of the public was willing to say that ceos at high levels of ethics and honesty. so you are met romney, extremely competent and capable. before the campaign is started, you are starting at a deficit and you have to prove your worthy of trust. second, ceos are used to making decisions, barking out orders, having with tenants who are capable and being a results-
6:09 pm
oriented. that is not what politics is. politics is trying to cajole people who are low or racking than you, -- lower ranking ban you, it's a very different skills that. it makes you think about whether ceos should be presidential candidates. finally, a point that is often made on conservative talk radio is that america is a center- right country. as evidence of this attribute, look at polls and we know majority of americans don't trust the federal government to solve our problem. a majority of americans want to cut that deficit and wrestle with tough social issues like abortion. but it is not evidence that america is center right for a couple of reasons. when you ask people what do you want to cut from the federal budget and what should be
6:10 pm
protected, for defense, for human services and social security, what are they willing to cut? foreign aid. not a large part of the federal budget. the last point is when pollsters ask people to self identify your liberal, moderate or conservative, a lot of people say i'm a conservative and proud. not a lot people want to say i'm liberal because liberal has become a pejorative term. it's like being a lobbyist. you may be the most competent -- that's always a laugh line. i know lobbyists. and liberals to, but what you see is a lot of people who will self identify as a liberal are actually pretty moderate. -- some people who identify as a moderate are actually pretty liberal and a lot of people who are somewhat liberal will even self identified as conservative.
6:11 pm
when you look at the exit polls of people who said they were conservative, a certain percentage actually voted for obama. you can't always believe the labels. i think where we are is the silent majority that comes out every four years our people in this vast middle and are perhaps fiscally conservative to some degree but on social issues, are moderate to left of center. that is an issue the republican party is going to have to deal with. >> thank you. i asked our panelists to only sure the first half hour so that all of you could ask questions. we want to get off to a lively start and remind you that at the first break is when the ultimate party favor will be delivered, which is a guide to the new congress which always has people looking down and poring over it. there is nothing to read right
6:12 pm
now, ask good questions. these guys have done a good job at laying that table. since this is being recorded for posterity, please take advantage of the microphones. ask away. the microphone walker has to come all the way down for the first question. >> if necessary, we can repeat a question. the impact of hurricane sandy on the election. our polling showed there was an impact. our final poll showed obama with 57% and romney with 47%. we had a dead tie a week earlier. the only intervening events at that time was sandy and obama got 70% approval for his handling of the situation.
6:13 pm
a plurality of romney supporters also approved. i think in the end, it was modest. i don't think it really to hit one way or the other. i think obama had been edging a little bit had prior to the hurricane. the last two debates, not as important as the first debate. never is, but obama had not only stemmed from the's momentum following the first debate but also had developed his own. in the end, it probably helped him. the atmospherics and symbols of chris christie embracing him, but it was on the margins. may have helped in the popular vote in the northeast. we did see a big swing 4 obama elite and northeast.
6:14 pm
in our final poll, he was ahead even more. >> whenever a president can appear presidential, it's good. >> multiple other things can help him. michael bloomberg's endorsement which technically was not exactly stormed a related, but he said he felt the president would be better on climate change and he felt the storm -- that made a big difference. for people on the margins and these independents, that is what the romney campaign believed. >> i am interested in the impact of health-care and medicare. you did not really talk much about that, but that was a big conversation when paul ryan was appointed. what was the impact about those
6:15 pm
conversations and how is the position on a fiscal cliff going forward? >> it is interesting. medicare did not play as big a role as it might have, given ryan house position on that issue. i think the republicans did a pretty good job. when you hear paul ryan talk about medicare throughout the campaign, the number you remember is 716 billion, the cut they said obamacare would make. it was not about vouchers or premium support. it was not about paul ryan's plan. even a state like florida, romney ran pretty well. i think it was about a seven. deficit. not huge. i really don't think the medicare issue hurt it romney all that much at the end of the day.
6:16 pm
-- heard from the all that much at the end of the day. >> 52% in favor of the president on who would handle medicare better. >> several of the candidates who made the rise in budget an issue in their own races they actually all lost on that issue. on the issue of health care and repealing it, what should happen to the 2010 health-care law, a 49% said repeal some or all. 49% to expand or leave it as it is treated doesn't seem like a decisive issue. >> a tiny bit of news -- paul ryan did say yesterday that he was reelected to his house seat with ease and did assert he would be returning as the chairman of the house budget
6:17 pm
committee, which is against the house republican rules that they're probably not going to stand in his way. >> what does the election mean for the tea party going forward? >> that is a really good question. i think the tea party will be around but not necessarily by that name. smaller government as good and that will be around for some time. but if you are the republican national committee right now and you are counting the number of senate races that were lost where there were opportunities, you have to start to wonder what have we unleashed here? the movement will be influential and it is one of a
6:18 pm
smaller government that does resonate with quite a few americans. where the tea party gets into trouble is where they go well beyond that economic conservatism. there is not just one tea party. there are like a tea parties and that makes it very difficult for them to try to negotiate and strike deals. >> i think they did provide the energy and enthusiasm that helped republicans win house in 2010 and i think many of those same house members elected in 2010 will be the primary obstacle to a deal on the fiscal cliff. those words have not been mentioned but i think people will be asking about and that will be the focus going forward. those tea party members or whatever they call themselves are still there and they are still a conservative and holding
6:19 pm
the same views. >> don't forget, senate leadership elections will be interesting on the republican side. the election of ted crews and what he and that doing push in that caucus to the right, the strength of rand paul. republican senators don't have a lot of ability to stop what's happening in the senate. >> that's right. the other tea party-aligned incoming senator from nebraska -- most people have paid attention to the ones who lost because of their comment about rape. they did not do badly. but only 10 or 11, if alan west loses his recount. but only 10 members of the class were defeated the mets on a bad ratio.
6:20 pm
>> there was so much concern going into this alexian about the concern of citizens united. well that just make the snapshot or is that too easy? >> that is a narrative question. >> it will make the big check books that shut. i think it has been interesting that when it citizens united came for in early 2010, there was an assumption that big corporations would be jumping into the game. i can't remember who it was but one democrat said it will be like nascar where the drivers have patches on them. at the time, this is what i said and i still feel it's true. if you are a big corporation, why would you want to risk so much damage to your reputation by getting that engaged at that level of financial contribution? there's a good chance a lot of
6:21 pm
employees may not agree -- may not agree and you might lose and it's really expensive. when you have generally seen is billionaires' and millionaires and some privately held companies and unions with emphasis on the millionaires and billionaires. some of them will continue to do this and i would be asking tough questions about what kind of strategy did you use it's going to be harder to raise money because of the fact that the success rate was so low. this is not about the public's attitude, it's the electric's attitude in an off-year election, the potential for other groups is far greater. >> one of your moderators' for
6:22 pm
the event today in the afternoon has an excellent story looking at what the impact the super pacs had. they did influence a lot of house races. >> the attention was focused on the presidential race and that's the least place to have an effect. when you have of this money up front to define a candidate and they don't have any money because they're just getting started -- if you come in really strong with a lot of cash, it can make a difference but less so in a presidential race where the candidates have fairly good name recognition. >> there was a super pak that's got rid of it targeted investments just by surprise -- three or four incumbents and
6:23 pm
then mike bloomberg cost them control decided to make a long shot investment in los angeles -- a woman whose name i have not memorize but she won and defeated the incumbent on that issue. he invested a very targeted surprise attack and i think that echoes the point. >> looking around the room, i see everybody with their ipad and everything -- you mentioned that young vote being increased and i'm curious about social media on the ability to get the young vote out and how effective that was. >> that question has been evaluated in a lot of different ways and we should be careful about how we define social media. does it mean twitter where there are a lot of partisans going back and forth or does it mean
6:24 pm
facebook where you see 88 of your friends posting i just voted for barack obama and i'm really happy about it? or do you mean the campaign the president invested in heavily to understand who they're voters were and whether or not they have shown up? or the fact that they sent -- that and that pressure you to do it. i'm not sure about the answers, but i will give a shout out to the author of "the victory lab it made an enormous difference from knowing not only where the voters were but what their attitudes were and that information you put out there on the internet just by buying a book on amazon or putting your marital status, it does really
6:25 pm
matter. to the issue of women and reproductive rights, what was fascinating to me was when susan g. coleman decided to stop funding planned parenthood. that became one of the biggest social media stories. people who are not politically active or engaged in issues like that were more exercised on that issue than anything else. to the young up voter point -- there was a great study after the first debate showing second screen voters. >> i have to be clear about this -- it is difficult to poll on this issue because they complications trying to get the implications of social meeting is very difficult. we did a contact survey and romney supporters were about as likely as obama supporters to
6:26 pm
say they had been reached out to buy social media, text, or e- mail. it's a little surprising. when they came to personal visits in the battleground states, more obama supporters than romney supporters said they had gotten one. that may be a telling finding. but in terms of their own media use, that is where you see it and you see this phenomenon with about a quarter of young people watching the first debate with an ipad or cell phone or some sort of digital device. 10% of all adults, small numbers but significant. we put out a survey and we have been tracking media news consumption habits for 25 years or so.
6:27 pm
newspaper people always say here it comes again, another survey showing we have lost readers. but the headline was not about newspapers. it was about television and the first signs that in this new media environment, television may be vulnerable. everybody was watching, even if they had another screen at the ready, they were watching the fox or whatever on election night -- >> or pbs. >> or pbs. we have seen the first signs -- we've seen the first signs of young people in particular are tuning out of television news and moving on to getting their news on social media and the internet.
6:28 pm
it no longer just bad news for newspapers. >> wasn't it 17% of people who get their news from social media? >> it is a growing number. when you take the under 30 or under 25 demographic, given how little they do other things -- >> that makes for -- if you are only looking at your twitter feet, you are following people more like you and it is less diversified. >> the thing about social media is it is a social media. just because people are using something doesn't mean it creates behavior. a lot of people are starting to use the platforms of youtube and facebook but so far, it has not been and overwhelmingly been
6:29 pm
changing vehicle for changing opinions. it is a great for getting out the vote and keeping your friends knowing what you're doing. we always have to be careful that we don't mix activity and uses with changing behavior. >> i think the flip side is joseph kelly. you may not remember who -- joseph kony. he was and annette sensation for about a week with the child soldiers in uganda and there is a big campaign against this use of child soldiers but it petered out very quickly. it was not a game changer by any means. >> i know that some states pared back early voting opportunities
6:30 pm
and other imposed additional voter i.d. requirements and in florida, sheet voted early and they have a requirement where voters had to sign a statement saying they understood voter fraud penalties. did any of these have an impact on the election? >> it may have lengthened the lines but there was a report a week and a half ago reminding people that all lot of these laws that were passed by a lot of republican legislatures were either suspended or postpone before this election. these are issues of lawyers are evaluating now what type of consequences will these have later, but it ended up not being that big a factor. what is interesting about fraud is the election results, you never hear about it again for the next two years.
6:31 pm
finding examples of it is something both parties are trying to do not just for fraud and abuse, but they can actually hang it on a narrative that you are not seeing that happening. i think it definitely contributed to the long lines because people wanted to make sure they were going to get the vote. >> one piece of demographic i have not seen a lot commentary on is the age demographic. the older you get, the more likely you are to vote republican. we will have the baby boom retiring and the over 65 group is going to get larger and larger as a percentage of the population. is there any hope for the republican party in that demographic? >> i think there is. we did a major study of a year ahead of the election and the
6:32 pm
boomers are cross pressure on some of these social issues, the changes in the country, they are a little uncomfortable. but there are a group deeply concerned about the future of the retirement program. they want a very generous retirement program, saw their cross pressure in that way and the striking thing is the next oldest generation and how consistently the 65 and older people, the silent generation, what ever you want to call it, people in their seventies and eighties who came up in the eisenhower administration, have gotten very republican. one of the most important parts of the republican base now. and it is not a growing demographic. when you look at the demographic change in this country, you can
6:33 pm
almost quantify it this way -- 3 million people or so -- maybe that figure is a little high, they are leaving the electorate each year. that is a euphemism i guess, and they are mostly white and probably pretty republican. 3 million people are coming into the electorate every year. a higher percentage of minorities. these 3 million are much bigger targets at this point, and that is the shift at this point. >> when you look at the exit polls, you have mitt romney winning 56% of 65 or over and the president winning 43%. when you look into those demographics, the president won 93% of african-american voters and 62% of latino voters over 65.
6:34 pm
>> i have a demographic and in question related to the latino vote. i keep hearing hispanics should be the natural consistency -- natural constituency of republicans. they may not be true anymore. what sort of out reached do you think republicans can do to increase the latino vote if they are the constituency. is that belief wrong and how can you -- i'm reading the believing in america nostalgic is between the lines, believe in the america, that is 80% white and 1960. how do republicans overcome that and are hispanics seeing through it? >> i think you have a president who did a good job over coming it. it wasn't just immigration reform that -- the percentage of
6:35 pm
the hispanic vote for george of the bush is still debated. exit polls showed 40%. that might be of little high. but it's a lot better than the 26% mitt romney got on tuesday. i think compassionate conservatism was part of the message. wasn't just immigration reform. if you will recall, immigration reform was blocked mostly by republicans, not democrats. i think immigration is part of the story but there has to be a more moderate stance on the role of government and government activism if the republicans are truly interested in trying to build support among hispanics. >> anti-government feelings are not nearly as strong among hispanics. there's a greater assumption
6:36 pm
government needs to play a positive role in society. the tea party idea of government is the problem is not going to go over well with large hispanic populations. >> we may have time for one or two more. >> i want to go back to their use boat. i have young family members in austin texas and minnesota. they tend to be more libertarian than liberal. it very entrepreneur oriented. but they detest the social values of the republican party. i think the democratic party may have a bit of an issue with this population as well. >> you saw a little bit of that in 2008, particularly with gary
6:37 pm
johnson as a libertarian candidate. it is about having somebody evangelized for your cause. even though ron paul had support. a lot of them were not republican primary voters. if there is a candidate who can galvanize that energy around social issues and a civil liberty issues. this is where you see this weird coalition between super liberals and the very right wing conservatives on issues regarding war and spending abroad. there is definitely something the republican party will have to be grappling with there and it is an opportunity. it's not necessarily the libertarian party but a movement within the party to push in one direction. >> i think that is right. we segment the electorate and to
6:38 pm
cool sounding names and things like that but we actually had a libertarian and they had the views you with that but we had postmodernism or part of the democratic coalition. these are people who did not take the old democratic line on the role of government or even on race. they were very liberal on social issues. there is a tension there, no doubt. >> gary johnson ended up with more votes than would from paul in 1988. >> there is the question of how much ron paul's vote is related to one issue -- marijuana. >> thank you for answering the questions. i would like to sway a little further to the budget with
6:39 pm
respect to making these deep cuts -- sequestration. what is it and whose idea was it? >> i think that is a -- let me try to do in one minute and we will take a break. sequestration is in some dispute -- the president blamed it on republicans but there is more evidence this was an idea the idea pulled out of the bag at the last minute during the debt fight. it's very simply -- others will explain it in more detail in the morning, it's an across-the- board cut that would affect a 50% of domestic programs and 50% of military programs indiscriminately. the idea politically during that debt talks was to force republicans to swallow that or accept that which would be a
6:40 pm
poison pill over the long term because they don't want the defense cuts on the hope that would get them to come back that paul and agree to revenue increases. it did not work and that's why we are approaching the fiscal cliff now and after the break. we will be back in a few minutes. [applause] >> i need some help over here. >> just try to get across and roll yourself out. >> he was issued -- he has taken 10 tablets. >> that is ridiculous. >> at some point, he could stop
6:41 pm
breathing if he took too much narcotics and we will be doing cpr on the patient. >> where is sergeant robert gates today? >> we end up following him after this plane ride. he ended up entering himself into a program at walter reed where they add that using acupuncture and meditation and other techniques to wean him off all the drugs he was on and through this program, he was able to walk out of all to read on his own 2 feet. i commend the military or two things -- for allowing us to tell the story, both the good and bad, and for recognizing this problem. recognizing there is a problem of over medication and they're looking for outside the box ideas to fix it. that is the thesis of the film
6:42 pm
and the metaphor -- the status quo is not working and we need to look for outside the box ideas. >> more with the producer and director of "escape fire." that's sunday night at 8:00 on c-span. >> on the "washington journal" to our morning -- fred barnes, editor of the "weekly standard" will take questions about the future of the republican party. we will discuss the hispanic vote and the washington bureau chief will look at -- of the "los angeles times" will look at changes in the demographic. today, we spoke with the couple of reporters to see what lies ahead for members of congress when they return to work on tuesday.
6:43 pm
host: we are back with two longtime editors of congress here. thank you both for being here. let me show our viewers some have done from your publication. here is "the hill." what is your take on this? guest: i think part since standing down may not be something we see in our lifetimes. it is always good after as much gridlock as we have seen, at least part of using terms like compromise. that is not a bad thing. let's get together. this has to be solved. but we will see. guest: we have the same players
6:44 pm
that we had with the gridlock. nothing has really changed. we are watching what nancy pelosi is going to do. the main players are still the same. john boehner, harry reid, mitch mcconnell. they have not been able to reach a deal. will they be able to move forward now? they were saying some nice things yesterday, both harry reid and john boehner. actions speak louder than words. there are many obstacles what they can do in the main -- the lame duck. host: we covered both yesterday at a news conference. let me begin with the speaker was talking about the fiscal clef and really what it comes down to is tax cuts and whether you let them expire. [video clip] >> real economic growth eluded us in the first term of this president. without it, we cannot solve the debt problem. for the purposes of forging a
6:45 pm
bipartisan agreement, we are willing to accept new revenue under the right conditions. what matters is where the increased revenue comes from and what type of reform comes with it. does the increased revenue come from government taking a larger share of what the american people learned through higher tax rates, or does it come as a buy part -- byproduct of growing the economy energized by a simpler, fairer tax code with your loopholes and lower rates for all. at the same time, we are reforming a tax code, are we taking concrete steps to put our entitlement programs on a sounder financial footing? or are we just going to continue to doubt the matter of entitlements, thus the root of the entire problem. host: what did you hear there from the speaker? guest: lots of code words. when they say, we are willing
6:46 pm
to consider revenue, it can mean many things. it can mean we are willing to change to raise taxes on certain groups of people. and can also mean that we are willing to do things if it will make the economy generate more revenue. if you listen closely to what the speaker said yesterday, he -- he emphasized the latter. we will focus on the economy and helping the economy generate more revenue. he said, we want lower rates for all. the key part and the part is a cleaner tax code. the tax pledge republicans have taken said, no reason taxes. also, no getting rid of breaks and that the tax codes without compensating for it elsewhere by lowering taxes somewhere else. that is not what the speaker said.
6:47 pm
he suggests that you might be able to eliminate some of the tax breaks that could have an impact on what the president refers to as the richest of the rich. that is for the compromise might come. guest: it is fascinating, john boehner usually using press conferences off the cuff. this was carefully planned on a teleprompter. his job just got tougher. he has a new president with a
6:48 pm
mandate. the democrats are saying he has a mandate on the taxes. he still has a majority, but it is less than they used to be. you have an expanded democratic majority of in the senate. he has to toe the line with the tea party here. he was indicating he is open for compromise. the big question is, do you reduce the deficit with that? in a speech, the recently said we cannot do tax like we did in 1986. you have to take some of the revenue and put it towards the debt. host: here is jim jordan who represents a pretty strong faction within the house gop. he says this -- there is this headline in "the washington times." aguest: after every election we all have the same narrative. this is a battle for the heart and soul of the democratic party, the republican party. this time it actually is. there are issues to work out here.
6:49 pm
i think at the very least what i am hearing across the board is that republicans got the message that they cannot be a party of a senior citizens that are white. they have to expand their base. they have to deal with hispanics and minorities in a more attractive way. that is going to be a big theme. were the tea party fits into this, there are a lot of establishment republicans looking at those lost races in misery and saying -- in missouri and sitting, how did we get there? how did we lose two races on the definition of rape. i think you will see the social conservative side of the party on defense. how do we go forward?
6:50 pm
host: it is not only the tea party or the conservative part of the house republicans, also within the leadership, they are represented by eric cantor. here is the headline in our publication -- is he on the same page as guest: the:i think he is. john boehner will do things a little bit differently. we had some major conflict between john boehner and eric cantor. that her what a lot were trying to do. we talk to republicans who were frustrated by that. there is tension between the members, tension between staff. at one point they had to have a press conference or they put their arms around each other. that shows you the needed to show it. maybe some people did not buy it. this time we are hearing the staffs are working better and the members are doing better. they came up with a game plan because they have to be united. they actually have to lead the republican congress.
6:51 pm
they have to turn it round. host: christian science monitor -- here is your headline. let's listen to what harry reid had to say yesterday. [video clip] >> it is better to dance than to fight. it is better to work together. everything does not have to be a fight. that is the way it has been the past couple of years. everybody should comprehend, especially my senate friends, legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building. host: in your headline, did you hear compromise from the senate majority leader? guest: we heard both mention
6:52 pm
that word for short. the key thing on the senate side is something that is going to sound abstract. the key thing is, what kind of amendments are allowed on the floor? used to be the senate was an open place. going back to bill frist, speakers did something -- i know this is arcane -- called feeling the tree. they make it impossible for the other side to raise the amendments. increasingly the amendments made the only way to the issue at hand. senators would have to take tough of votes. there were sometimes set up deliberately to make it difficult. harry reid for the past two cycles has gone out of his way to keep any vote on the floor that could embarrass or hurt his members to preserve his majority. that includes not allowing a vote on a budget in three years. the question for him is going
6:53 pm
to be, does he allow real debate on the floor? as to allow amendments? the republicans pull off a little bit and make amendments relative to the bill. that is what we will tell you if there is real compromise or whether it is just words. host: and you write about that and "the christian science monitor." here is "the washington times." how can he get that done? guest: i think that will be very difficult. if there is one thing members of congress is aware of, they want today's -- today's majority could be in the minority tomorrow.
6:54 pm
it gives them a voice and a way to stop from being rolled on legislation. i think he will even find some democrats -- you have this come up in the past. you find members of the majority reluctant to give up this right. i think it is going to have to have a different tone first. there is one thing he would not hear from senate republicans this year, and that is their number one priority is to prevent a second term for barack obama. that is out of the barn. these extremely damagingit was t
6:55 pm
6:56 pm
romney wanted to make the bush tax cuts permanent, and that obama wanted to make only $250,000 permanent. there was no question about that. when the majority of americans went to the polls, stood in long lines for eight hours, 10 hours, 12 hours, they showed that they knew what they were voting for. for the republican congress to be putting obstacles up against the bush tax cuts, i think it is unreasonable. guest: tax policy. that is what we are talking about. the interesting thing here is
6:57 pm
that some democrats, certainly in the senate, are not fond of the two and a $50,000 thresholds. -- $250,000 threshold. they want to move him to $1 million. the senate democrats did very well. if you look at the next election in 2014, you have 20 senate democrats up for reelection. among the 20, there are conservative democrats who will not be fond of raising taxes. is something republicans are talking about yesterday. they know they have to give some ground, but they are not going to give ground on $250,000. host: exit polls show voters approve of this idea. 6 in 10 said they liked the idea of raising taxes for those over two and $50,000. -- $250,000. guest: that is the problem for republicans. that is why republicans -- and we saw john banner showing he is willing to make a deal.
6:58 pm
not saying what he will do, but they know they have to give some ground. republicans had a difficult election night. host: i think when you said the next election, i heard a groan. laura from twitter. joyce you are up next. caller: this is food for thought. i received an e-mail that said if he spent $1 for every second, it would take you 32,000 years to spend $1 trillion. i could not believe it, i got my calculator out and check it. it really comes up that way. that is $86,400 a day that you would have to spend an order to get to $1 trillion. we owe $16 trillion already.
6:59 pm
i think that is something all the politicians and every person in this country has to think about, regardless of your party affiliation. thank you. guest: that is a wonderful point. it is a reminder that sometimes in washington we are so focused on what happens inside the congress, who are the players and what are they saying, we forget that there is -- there are other players here. the stock market spoke yesterday when it dropped. the bond market -- when the united states puts out a bond offer, do people buy it? will china by it? will japan by it? well our credit rating drop again? what happens if the credit rating drops? what happens if interest rates go up? we have been conducting this
7:00 pm
recession for some time in a condition of virtual zero interest rates. what happens if they go up, perhaps even a lot? things change very rapidly in washington. i think that is something members ought to talk about. suddenly it is real. if they do not solve the fiscal cliff, there is economists tell us a recession in the first part of 2013. if they punted down the road, the bond credit rating agencies tell us they will lower the bond rating with consequences. it is not just whether they can agree, it is how the larger movers, the economy and key players in it, respond as well. host: frank, an independent caller. caller: when interest rates go up, we will be in a deal. i think obama was reelected and
7:01 pm
i will congratulate him, but i will tell you something, we are doomed because we are overspending. it does not tell us anything the that we have not really known. we have created an entitlement society. that is why he was reelected. he has too many people looking for handouts. they have lost all of their individual pride. as a nation we have changed dramatically. instead of standing up and doing what is right for ourselves and for our country, we're helping our country will pay for everything on the markets. i think we are doomed in the next year. host: on interest rates going up, when does that happen? he said that is when you see everyone coming together. guest: i think the stock market will have a big effect.
7:02 pm
you go back to the financial and clothes and when the stock market failed. that is when -- the markets are closely watching washington. congress does one thing at a time. maybe interest rates rise. you have to watch what the fed does under ben bernanke. some seniors are upset about interest rates because the money in the bank is not making money. it is a tumultuous time and what policy makers do over the next several weeks and months will be important. host: twitter -- if tarp made so much money for the treasury, why are we 17 trillion debt? caller: i have very mark and i would like to have the question answered. i believe mitt romney lost by
7:03 pm
two million votes. there are 49 million people on welfare. do you think they would support romney when they are getting something for free? people that are working, they have families, my remarks to them is good ready for the pain. this president will never change. harry reid and nancy pelosi have been screened congress for years. they will not let compromise happen. host: gail russell chaddock. guest: you raise a good question that has pushed back in the real world. you can present an entitlement like medicare, at some point people have to find a doctor that will be willing to take
7:04 pm
them. we will see in 2013 when big cuts in payments to medicare providers kick in. for congress, it is a number, but for people waiting to see a doctor, it is in effect, and if they find that there are doctors not willing to see them, that is a fact the congress has to consider and i think you will see that in the next year. congress has passed something. it will open opportunity. what if it does not? what is on the ground people are not finding doctors willing to take their case? that is a big dynamic. it is not just whether they can agree in congress, but if what they have done works the way congress said it would, and that is people will see immediately in their experience. guest: both parties have
7:05 pm
contributed to this. if you look back george w. bush's claims on the budget, and president obama, they said they would cut the deficit in half. neither of them did that. there were definitely accounting gimmicks in the president until health care reform law, -- president's health-care reform law, so both parties will have to give the taxes, spending, an entitlement reform. we're looking at the huge package, whenever it gets done. when that happens is a big question. john boehner does not want this done in the lame duck. he wants the new congress. two years ago, republicans had
7:06 pm
a huge night and they want to wait for their freshman to come in that he cannot counter that. he wants some kind of down payment. host: chris in alabama says democrats and republicans do not even have to make a vote. all they have to do is nothing and taxes will increase. guest: that such an interesting argument. it is been around in congress to read -- bandied around in congress a lot. present -- republicans have pledged not to raise taxes. at the next vote the take will be to lower taxes, but perhaps not for everyone. it is an interesting way out of the problem.
7:07 pm
i think it was patty murray, on the senate side, who said maybe it is not such a bad idea to go over the fiscal cliff because it gives democrats more leverage. if somebody else is making harsh demands they have an advantage. in this case the ones who handle the credit rating will have the voice in this as well. host: they say in "the marketplace" section of "the washington journal -- wall street journal" -- stock it already. member of twitter says what would you expect if they want to influence congress? what could wall street due to influence congress? guest: if the market as a whole dropped dramatically based on
7:08 pm
what washington is doing, washington is going to stop doing that or do something that will appease them. that would affect everyone's 401ks. we saw that in 2008. if the markets are jittery and retirement funds are in jeopardy, that is a huge fact. you saw that with the debt limit. when the market get jittery, that effected congress and administration. host: democratic caller. wisconsin. caller: everybody is play in the blame game, but we put them in office. they do not want to do the job, we need to build them out. tell them we want them to do their job. it is not the republican party or the democratic problem -- party.
7:09 pm
host: how did you vote? caller: i voted for obama. host: and in the senate race? caller: 50 much independent. host: did you vote for tammy baldwin or tommy thompson? caller: i did not vote for either host: -- either. host: democratic column. caller: i think people are afraid to vote for third parties because they have never experienced it before. because we are in so much trouble there is no reason not to go for a third party. it is not going to hurt us. we are in such a mess there is no reason not to experiment with different viewpoints, especially when it comes to
7:10 pm
monetary policy. host: gail russell chaddock? guest: high in the huge fan of third parties. there is a phenomenon of a critical realigning election, when the late shift, the new deal was won election -- was one election. people refer to this as a demographic election, and that -- that is a useful term, but democracy is not a block. out of the knicks could come possibilities for a third party -- this mix could come the possibility for a third party that would not be shackled by disputes of the past. -- we have already seen that parties have lost control of
7:11 pm
who finances candidates. what if these groups turned to funding third parties? it is an interesting possibility. it is certainly no longer true that the money has to come from one or two parties. host: gary johnson, libertarian candidate, reached 1.2 million votes, the most by any libertarian candidate. do you think there is a message there? guest: i think there is always a hunger for a third party, but you need the money unless you have someone spending of lot of money to boost an independent candidate -- in this cycle we have seen the campaign for
7:12 pm
primate -- primary accountability go after a long term incumbents, and eric cantor contributed money to that effort. it had a lot of members on the republican and democratic side very nervous and a few of them lost. if there is that movement. until you have the money behind it, it is just not going to happen. host: do you think there could be a legislative changes to the citizens united case? we heard from dan lungren, the republicans in california who had a race where he was challenged by outside money, and he said we need to take a look at this. guest: that is one to watch. john mccain was very critical of the citizens in that this case, and he was working with democrats in this congress, and
7:13 pm
it was postponed with the election. hearing more from republicans, even the head of the finance committee, they're not fans of the democrat's fix, but there could be some movement in the next congress. whether it succeeds we will see. host: the democratic fixed is the disclosure act? guest: yes. guest: i have for democrats concerned about what karl rove was doing, and what koch brothers were doing, but democrats did pretty well when it comes to this alternative funding. it was very powerful at the end and made a difference. we now have a system where both parties do pretty well. of all of the tweets the one
7:14 pm
that made me laugh was david axelrod, the president's chief campaign officer, who said there would be a lot of billionaires' at their refund window. host: ray, seneca falls, new york. republican caller. caller: i have an interesting theory. let's make term limits for congress and the senate, then we will get people interested in helping the country out. all i see is bickering. host: how did you vote? caller: i voted for obama. i got sick and tired of listening to these guys are due. it is just ridiculous. host: let me and to those comments. the most under-discussed result of the election, a 9% approval
7:15 pm
of congress, but most incumbents were reelected. guest: that is a difference between recent elections. we have seen waive elections in 2008 and 2010. this time, both sides lost some people, but not a lot. incumbents usually do well. this is the first election in a while that a higher percentage of them did well. host: a couple of speculation pieces. but we begin with "the hill." were you hearing? -- what are you hearing? if you call there is a question whether nancy pelosi will -- host: if there is a question whether nancy pelosi will run to be minority leader. she is a force in the democratic party. she is a fund-raiser and a
7:16 pm
lightning rod, and you have young democrats that wants to move of the leadership ladder, and they are trying to read the tea leaves. chris van hollen was asked, and he said he did not know. you have some steny hoyer, jim cliburn, and they're not going anywhere. if nancy pelosi decides that she's going to step aside, we will seek a flurry of activity with chris van hollen, and perhaps steny hoyer and james clyburn. host: could we see members of congress moving to the white house? guest: i think so. that is one to watch, especially in the house.
7:17 pm
it is trickier in the sand ridge in the senate. -- in the senate. you have to be cognizant of that. in the house, the minority, i think you'll see at least a couple of house democrats that joined obama's team. host: that question -- raises questions about whether john kerry could be picked as secretary of state. guest: if john kerry is collected, you have an election, and who would run for that seat? scott brown. host: "christian science monitor" headline -- "paul ryan returns to house -- is he ready for a bigger role in the gop?" guest: there is speculation that he is interested in staying on. he appears to be one of the few willing to take the difficult
7:18 pm
decisions, what ever the political fallout is. even the budget document, there is a bottom line, and everyone can see what the projected deficits are if these choices are made, where the cuts are. it is something paul ryan has been willing to do and that puts him in the heart of every important decision that the house will have to make this session. i think he has definitely kept himself in the heart of it. leadership appears to be willing to give him a waiver. i do not think he's going anywhere. host: dog to sit, your publication has this had lied -- bob to set, your publication has this -- bob cusack?
7:19 pm
guest: a lot of conservatives were not criticizing mitt romney because it was close to the election, but i think paul ryan has a bright future. if he wants it, he will get that waiver from the budget committee. he also has his eyes on the ways and means committee. dave camp will be term limited as chairman. does he run for the ways and means committee? it is a powerful committee. then again, will he run for president in 2016? there is a lot of potential for paul ryan, and john boehner will give him the boy. i think he stays -- the voice. i think he stays in congress until it least 2016. host: robert, south carolina. democratic caller. caller: everybody keeps talking about government cutbacks, but
7:20 pm
we do not cut back both houses. if we paid them for each session that they attend and make them pay their own retirement like the average worker, maybe we will start to see some results. they are getting away with too much. we treat them like royalty. host: gail russell chaddock, why don't you take that one? guest: a lot of the members feel that they have cut back a lot because of criticism and close looking at what the benefits are that members achieve. there have been suggestions from the left and right that if members do not produce a budget and do what they are supposed to do by law, you do not pay them. i think you find that there is growing support for some kind of sanction.
7:21 pm
it is striking that a party with 9% approval rating should return so many incumbents, but in public education, overall they would say they are terrible, but overall they are fine. in congress, there is redistricting, and one of the interesting stories of the election that i would love to work on myself is how much of the gains and losses that happened were the results of a strong investment but republicans made in state houses prior to 2010 said they would be in a position to decide what the districts look like? in the end, it is part of the reason that we could spend $2 billion on a congressional
7:22 pm
election and change no numbers. it was an investment in statehouses to knock off incumbents from the other the other party earlier -- from the other party earlier. host: julie. how did you vote on tuesday? caller: 5 voted for romney because i felt he was the best candidate. i did not see anything happening in the past four years as a 63-year-old that i felt would be of any benefit to me. my comment is along the same lines of some of your other callers. it is about term. we seem to forget that those people in washington are supposed to be dealing with
7:23 pm
federal issues, not state issues. john edwards came from north carolina and did not contribute anything to the state of north carolina and our welfare. i saw barack obama go to the u.s. senate and do exactly what john edwards did, and that will immediately start campaigning to be present. i believe our federal legislators are there to take care of federal business and our state legislatures, to be in our -- federal legislators ought to be down in our state, sending dollars to the state, and not sending them to the federal government to have federal legislators play a large game of twister to get the best position. host: bob cusack? guest: the caller mentioned term limits, and it was something mitt romney embraced, and the
7:24 pm
republicans on capitol hill have not embraced that, and neither have the democrats. it was talked about in the newt gingrich era, but both republicans and democrats are not fond of term limits. there is an argument against it, and that is when members get here, they promised to term- limit themselves, and when they get here they do not know how to legislate, they do not know where the bathrooms are, and just like anything they get experience and better at it, and they break the term-limit pledge. term limits will be discussed for a long time, but it will not be moving any time soon. host: let me go on to other legislative items. this is the front page of "the baltimore sun." and immigration reform, gail russell chaddock, what are the prospects something gets done?
7:25 pm
guest: i think the prospects went up dramatically when the republicans, they have to reach out. i think we were close to elements in the past years with john mccain and ted kennedy working together, but there is some sense we are protecting our borders for national security reasons, but also a path to citizenship. what elements are there are not clear, but you will have to have assurances it would not be 1986 all over again. it will be a tough sell. both parties have suddenly and
7:26 pm
interest in resolving this issue, and there have been good ideas out there for a long time that could be revived. host: -- guest: i agree. i think president obama has a huge opportunity to get a huge policy area that he promised to do. i think democrats could have gotten the dream that, done in 2009, but health care got in the way. the republican party does not have an immigration policy. they were going to come up with an alternative to the dream that, and they later backed off -- dream act, and they later backed off. the u.s. chamber of commerce wants it. they were pushing for it under president george w. bush who
7:27 pm
fell short. unions have some concern, so that is something to watch. that is something we will be talking about a lot in january, february and march. host: do you think it tops the agenda list >> guest: other than the fiscal cliff and the grand bargain, i do. host: charles. connecticut. republican line. caller: i would like to see a filibuster done away with, but i would like to see it replaced with this -- whenever there is a major bill, and you can develop a definition for a major bill, but whenever a party presents a major bill, you have to pass it with at least 20% vote of the opposing party. the idea is the congress is there for the american people. if the party proposing the bill
7:28 pm
cannot convince the least 20% of the other party that this is a bill that is good for the american people, then i do not think that bill should pass. it should be mandatory that you get at least 20% of the people of the opposing party to agree with you. host: gail russell chaddock? guest: that is an interesting idea, but what we have done is impose a stronger filibuster. they are not like "mr. smith goes to washington" where jimmy stewart is a gasping for breath after standing up for hours. it is like a routine where you do not have to tell the joke, and just say a number and everyone laughs. nothing happens without 60 votes in the senate. that is the filibuster. what has been suggested is 70 votes at least, assuming the majority party is 50/50. have i done my math?
7:29 pm
host: you are quicker than me. guest: i dread the next question. host: exactly. [laughter] guest: right now with of the boston does is something like he said. -- but the filibuster does is something like you said. a call the pathway to -- host: the pathway to 60 includes an independent from the state of maine who has not said what party he will caucus with. guest: i think it is a good bet he will sit with the democrats. one of our reporters spoke to
7:30 pm
harry reid, and he called angus king, who i do not think will stay for awhile. the republicans went after anxious -- angus king and the democrats did not endorse. they attack the republicans, but they did not endorse. i think basically harry reid is confident he will be sitting on their side of the aisle. host: mike, new york, democratic caller. dr. fred barnes, the executive editor of the weekly standard will take your questions about the election. we will discuss the vote with the national association of
7:31 pm
latino elected and appointed officials. and the washington bureau chief with the loss angeles times will look at demographic changes in the electorate. live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. congress returns to washington d.c. next week for a lame duck session. a couple new members will be sworn in. after they're sworn in, the second session of the 112 will have three vacancies. the house gavels in on tuesday at 2:00 p.m. eastern. the senate also returns tuesday. increasing access for hunting and fishing. the streamlined financing for homeowners.
7:32 pm
as always, live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2. >> i need some help over here. >> sergeant robert gates today, we ended up following him after this ride for many months. he ended up injuring himself --
7:33 pm
entering himself into an innovative program where they used acupuncture, meditation, other techniques to wean them off of all of the drugs he was gone. he was able to walk out on his own feet. i want to commend the military for allowing us to tell the story, both the good and bad. and for recognizing his problem. by recognizing there is a problem of over medication end they are looking for ideas of how to fix it. that is really the thesis of the film. that the status quo isn't working and we need to look for outside ideas. >> more with producer and director of "escape fire."
7:34 pm
>> to the pentagon acknowledged that a fire on an unmanned u.s. surveillance drawn in international airspace. it will return to base on harmed -- unharmed. they discussed the incident at today's briefing. >> good afternoon. this weekend, the secretary will be traveling to the asia pacific, the fourth trip, the third since june. further advance the strategy for rebalancing in the asia-pacific. the first stop will be australia where he will be joined by secretary clinton and others for the annual u.s.-australia ministerial. this is his first trip as secretary of defense to austria and will allow him to express
7:35 pm
gratitude for their contribution to our efforts in afghanistan. it also provides an opportunity to review the alliance is progress. and to discuss the next steps in this important operation. then he will travel to thailand, the first visit to thailand since 2008. it is an important alliance that will serve our country as well for 60 years and the government's are interested in establishing a strategic vision for this alliance. the final stop will be cambodia. the secretary will join 10 of his associates at the annual retreat. the secretary-general will emphasize the importance of regional stability and the defense cooperation. along with secretary clinton, it
7:36 pm
reflects the commitment of the united states for rebalance. he believes it is the right strategy for the future of security and prosperity for the united states in the asia- pacific region. >> do you have anything on these new reports that the iranians fired at a u.s. grounddrone, a predator drone? >> i can confirm on november 1, an unarmed and unmanned aircraft conducting routine surveillance was intercepted by iranian aircraft and fired upon with guns. the incident occurred over international waters, 16 nautical miles off of the coastline. it was not hit and returned to
7:37 pm
base safely. we have briefed relevant members of congress on the incident. the united states have communicated to the iranians and to conductue clint operations over the gulf within our commitment to the security of the region. we have a wide range of options to protect military assets and our forces in the region. we will do so when necessary. >> is 16 miles of the coast -- off of the ocast not iranian airspace as it would be 16 miles off of our own coast? can you say that the drum was never over iran? >> it was never in iranian airspace. it was always flying in international airspace.
7:38 pm
the internationally recognized territorial limit is 12 nautical miles off the coast. whenever i went within that limit. -- we never went within that limit. >> can you address whether the secretary has decided when or if he will leave his office of secretary of defense? what the plans may be? are there outgoing discussions with general allan? you update us where those stand. >> there is always a temptation shortly after an election to engage in washington parlor games and speculate about personnel changes that may or may not occur in the future. the secretary is focused squarely on his job today. he is focused on the department
7:39 pm
of defense and not on his personal situation. with respect to afghanistan, we continue to work closely with the requirements and what they might be. we have not submitted to the white house a formal analysis on that brought down. we will do so in the near future. >> has general allan's recommendation -- >> there are regular discussions with general allan about the scope and pace of the draw down. i don't have anything to announce today and i would not put too much stock in the presentation. this is a conversation that is occurring. we will work through the process.
7:40 pm
>> i think that he acknowledged that he will present his way forward. beyond the ongoing conversations, had he presented his way forward? if not, when? >> i am not aware that it has been formally presented, but i will circle back to you. >> he is not focusing on his future, but he is looking at the great retirement and determination -- where does the army input stand? >> the process is being finalized, and the army has done what it needs to do in the process. we will reach a solution relatively quickly. >> do you publicly acknowledge that he will return to the four- star level verses the 2-star
7:41 pm
level? >> we will let you know when the process has been finalized. >> in two separate notifications of congress, they said they plan to sell $16 billion of defense equipment. that is a lot of money. what is the underlying rationale for that proposed sale? the middle east is wrapping up -- [indiscernible] >> we have a range of interests and relationships in the region. we look to support the capabilities of the allies and partners. naturally, we are going to continue to develop our relationships. i would not draw connections between any particular country. >> of those particular types of
7:42 pm
vessels -- >> you know better than anybody that this kind of equipment costs a lot of money. mike? >> george, as far as you know, is this the first time that the iranians have shot at an american drone over the gulf? secondly the benghazi timeline, will we get that today or tomorrow? >> we look forward to finalizing it as quickly as possible and releasing it as soon as possible. not today. the incident that occurred last week, we believe this is the first time an unmanned finalizig it as quickly as aircraft has been shot at over international waters. i am not going to get into legal labels, the reality is that we
7:43 pm
have a wide range of options to protect our assets. we have communicated to the iranians that we will continue to conduct surveillance flights over international waters. >> besides communicating, is there any other military response? >> i will not speculate on what we may or may not do. through the swiss protected power. >> can you give us an idea of the surveillance systems you will be doing? what specifically are they doing? >> i will not comment on classified emissions. >> they are classified? >> we don't typically advertise with the surveillance missions are. >> he announced the system wide review of screenings and procedures.
7:44 pm
i was going ask why it was taking so long and when it will be finished. >> i do not know the precise time line, but i will get back to you on that. the secretary has made this a top priority. wounded warrior care, problem of sexual assault, these are things at the top of the priority list. chris? >> in terms of the report of china's sub capabilities, do you agree that in two years, china will have ways of building bombers and intercontinental missiles? >> which reports are you referring to? >> [inaudible] >> the u.s.-china commission? i will review the report and get back to you. repeating what he already said,
7:45 pm
i will come back to you with the specifics on the report. >> china has a new leader. if he had any chance to meet or talk, would he? >> the leadership transition process has not been completed as of yet. he did meet in beijing with their vice-president. >> congress is returning next week and all focus is on the fiscal cliff. the six-month deal to replace the sequestration cuts, is that something the pentagon can live with? related to that, how was the pentagon building the 2014 budget with these enormous questions about the future of funding? >> there are a lot of questions out there. those parlor games, a lot of them are attached to
7:46 pm
sequestration right now. this is really the congress of the united states. we have made our views known and loudly, clearly, and regularly. it kicks in in january. >> you will not get in the parlor games about ahow the secretary might want to stay around until the matter of sequestration is resolved? >> i will not speculate on the secretary's future intentions. inside the defense department, that is what he is coming every day to the pentagon to do. >> what recommendations are expected?
7:47 pm
the last time they were down here, what they were going to get from allan by the end of the month was post-2014 troop levels and not a draw down plan from 68 to whatever in 2014. is it both? >> let me get back to you on this question it is something that we are obviously analyzing - - question. it is something we are analyzing for 2014, the strategy we have laid out with international partners. and our enduring relationship with afghanistan. we made it clear we want to maintain a strong and enduring relationship with our afghan allies. i will come back to you on specifics. >> [indiscernible] does he plan to meet with the
7:48 pm
defense minister? >> we expect the burmese to be at the meeting. >> from his point of view, what kind of role does he see -- [indiscernible] >> with respect to india, he believes india is a very important player. he had very productive discussions. india plays a very important role and we look to deepen our relationship with the government of india. deputy secretary carter's efforts to look at streamlining sales between the two countries. india is a key player in the region than we look forward to build a stronger defense relationship. >> is he looking to reduce the
7:49 pm
bureaucratic hurdles between india and the u.s.? has this been going on for three or four months on that issue? >> he has been active and engaged on this issue. i do not know a specific report, but i will assure you he is working this matter very hard. let me get to louis. >> he recently had been shopping with a number of countries like australia or france, canada. since the u.s.-india deal had not gone through and indians are still waiting to get their energy, my question is, the secretary is pushing for this
7:50 pm
p.o., and we are in the second term also? >> which specific deal? >> the nuclear deal. >> we are looking at the entire u.s.-india and defense relationship to see how we can build capabilities. >> are we expecting any visit by the secretary to india? >> i am not aware of any plan for the near future but i will let you know if that changes. >> can you specify which service? navy or air force? >> i will not comment on who it belonged to. we have a very strong joint force in that part of the world. 4:40 a.m. eastern daylight time. >> was the secretary awoken and
7:51 pm
advise? >> he was advised very early in the morning of the incident. the white house was informed very quickly as well. >> having occurred over international waters, was the drone struck by bullets? >> ibased on our assessment, it was not hit or received any damage. it returned to base. i will not say specifically, but in that region. >> was it a warning shot or an attempt to take it down? >> our working assumption is that they fired to take it down. you'll have to ask the iranians why they engaged in this action . i don't have the precise time line. >> it never crossed into their
7:52 pm
territory, so international waters, there is some point where they intersect with each other and may have had a visual to determine what it was to fire. how you have an estimation how long it was being tracked? >> i don't have that. we were not warned in advance that they were going to fire h on this aircraft. they intercepted the aircraft and fired multiple rounds. rst an stopped? >> i think it was multiple rounds. they appear to have missed. >> did the uav take evasive maneuvers or did it keep a steady course? >> the aircraft, once it came under fire at approximately 16 nautical mile range, it moved
7:53 pm
further out. the iranian aircraft continued to pursue for some time before it returned to base. >> [inaudible] >> there is absolutely no question that the aircraft fired on this u.s. military -- >> any idea what rounds were fired? >> i will get back to you. what kind of iranian aircraft? the su25 frogfoot aircraft. >> did the iranians respond? >> i don't have any personal knowledge of their response. the state did communicate our concerns.
7:54 pm
>> did they dissuade the iranian aircraft from doing anything else? >> this was an unmanned aircraft, it was further away from the iranian aerospace. there were no other aircraft that were deployed to respond. >> [inaudible] scort ceasenian excort ceas when it left to international
7:55 pm
waters. >> it was always in international airspace. >> not when it is landing. >> it stopped -- i don't have the precise or how many minutes or miles. it was several miles that they continued to pursue. >> the iranian aircraft left iranian airspace? >> it took place in international airspace. >> i am having trouble understanding this. a jet fighter does not pursue a drone. the airspeed -- >> they continued to follow the
7:56 pm
unmanned aircraft. >> did they make a pass and orbit around it? dodge to they fired at least twice and made it least two passes. >> for example, when there is some sort of incident with an iranian plane, it is generally released. we would have gotten video at times. eight days later and we're just finding out now because of press reports? >> there is no precedent for this. i would not draw any parallels
7:57 pm
between this and past incidents. we routinely do not advertise our classified surveillance missions. >> [indiscernible] is there a new plan to fight against them? >> i will not comment on the counter-terrorism operations in pakistan. we continue to deal very aggressively with the network. funneling fighters, protecting lives in afghanistan. >> do you know how long it lasted? >> these are very fair questions and i do not have the precise
7:58 pm
time line for you at this stage. >> back to the stealth drone that crashed, can you refresh us on what the final ruling was for the cost of that crash? >> i will not comment on that incident. >> of the official ruling was there would be no discussion on that. >> i will not comment on what was reported at the time. >> did the white house ascii to muzzle this before the collection -- ask you to muzzle this before the>> of the offici? >> we typically don't comment on classified surveillance missions, so i will not get into discussions that the classified level that occured between this department at the white house. they were informed early on.
7:59 pm
missions typically are classified. i wish i were not talking about a classified mission. someone disclosed this in unauthorized manner and that is unfortunate. we take these kinds of disclosure is very seriously. we have had robust discussions about this very issue. this was an unauthorized disclosure of classified information. i will not get into it, i don't have an answer for you today. the disclosure came very recently. >> [inaudible] the national media -- you unleash the plumber's on that? t

Public Affairs
CSPAN November 8, 2012 5:00pm-8:00pm EST

News News/Business.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Washington 26, Obama 19, America 13, Romney 10, Paul Ryan 9, John Boehner 8, Nancy Pelosi 7, Harry Reid 7, India 7, Us 7, United States 6, Charlie 6, Florida 5, George Bush 5, Pentagon 4, Allan 4, John Mccain 4, Gail Russell Chaddock 4, Barack Obama 4, China 4
Network CSPAN
Duration 03:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 91 (627 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 11/8/2012